Medicare isn't a competitive model against private insurance because medicare doesn't even come close to paying individual doctor costs, let alone what the additional charges are for tests and equipment. It's one of the reasons a lot of doctors are refusing to take new patients with medicare or medicaid, or telling them they need to find new doctors. Because of the insurance requirements, doctors need to have a certain level of malpractice insurance and need to see X number of patients to just cover that cost of business, not counting rent, etc.. Why do you think so many doctors are suddenly shutting down their practices. Specialists will still be fine, but the primary care doctors will struggle. But if we're all going to specialists... that charge more anyway, that doesn't solve the cost issues.

So in order for it to be a competitive program, they'd need to not only subsidize the medical insurance of the patients, they'd need to subsidize the rent and expenses for the doctors which is never going to happen. Yes, most doctors just want to help people, but they run a business and if you aren't making a profit, you're not going to stay in business. And if a large percentage of private practices disappear, it would require more at the hospital level, which only makes the system more broke.

No one will argue that the health system is broke. But this blanket approach creates just as many problems as it claims to fix without solving the biggest issue of all, which is cost. The real issue lies in the problems with insurance itself, but no one wants to take on that industry, which is why this will continue to be a problem. Tort won't be addressed because most politicians are also lawyers. Eliminating state borders would allow more competition, but would cause the insurance agencies to downsize, so why would the insurance companies write a bill that did that? Until politicians grow some balls, it can't be fixed.

October 18th, 2013, 3:15 pm

I.E.

Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pmPosts: 408

Re: Obamacare is here to stay.

The Legend wrote:

Quote:

So let's watch our teams wear the pink in October, and appreciate the fact that more women are going to have access to preventative medicine.

i d like to hear how you think its possible to "prevent" breast cancer

Are you just being intentionally difficult? I try to find some common ground/silver lining, and you make a comment like that? As Mr. Pickles would say ... "embarrassing".

Anyway....

Rick Perry's now telling people to sign up, because the catastrophic plans that Texas had made available for people with pre-existing conditions were disastrously expensive, and now won't be necessary now that these people will have access to the same coverage as everyone else for the same prices. This is just two weeks after he called PPACA "illegal" (which tells you what inconsistent respect he has for the US legal system - I bet he didn't complain with the SCOTUS gave an election to GWB), and actually remarked that the President could be arrested for it. I'd call him a clown - but clowns are scary, and he's too stupid to be scary.

If I was a betting man ... OK, I am a betting man ... and here's my bet:

Within a few years, Republicans simply won't utter the term "Obamacare". They'll try to revise history and start calling it "Romneycare" or "HeritageCare" (after the conservative Heritage Foundation - the political organization/think tank/pac that pushed for the individual mandate approach 20 years ago). They'll say it was "stolen" by Barack Hussein Obama, the illegitimate 2-term White House occupier - and that it needs to be named after the True Americans who really "thought it up".

1) It's a myth. After Texas passed tort reform, the number of doctors in the state increased, but the cost of health care did not.

2) It's unconstitutional and unfair. I know the popular image is some seedy trial lawyer making out like a bandit arguing some frivolous case but I -- personally -- know people who have literally had their lives destroyed by malpractice, including their ability to earn any income. Should they just get $250k and call it a day?

October 19th, 2013, 5:12 pm

The Legend

HC – Jim Caldwell

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pmPosts: 4699Location: WSU

Re: Obamacare is here to stay.

Code:

2) It's unconstitutional and unfair. I know the popular image is some seedy trial lawyer making out like a bandit arguing some frivolous case but I -- personally -- know people who have literally had their lives destroyed by malpractice, including their ability to earn any income. Should they just get $250k and call it a day?

what you are describing is a perfectly healthy person with no medical conditions, no pain, no injury, and full function getting totally unneccessary care that resulted in some complication that debiliated them. is this true?

October 19th, 2013, 5:55 pm

The Legend

HC – Jim Caldwell

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pmPosts: 4699Location: WSU

Re: Obamacare is here to stay.

Quote:

Are you just being intentionally difficult? I try to find some common ground/silver lining, and you make a comment like that? As Mr. Pickles would say ... "embarrassing".

it was an honest question. that you are ignorant of basic medical concepts and still want to argue is your choice.

October 19th, 2013, 6:01 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Re: Obamacare is here to stay.

The Legend wrote:

Code:

2) It's unconstitutional and unfair. I know the popular image is some seedy trial lawyer making out like a bandit arguing some frivolous case but I -- personally -- know people who have literally had their lives destroyed by malpractice, including their ability to earn any income. Should they just get $250k and call it a day?

what you are describing is a perfectly healthy person with no medical conditions, no pain, no injury, and full function getting totally unneccessary care that resulted in some complication that debiliated them. is this true?

Obviously, if you're seeing a doctor, you have something wrong with you. But examples like this:

Quote:

You suffer severe trauma to your left arm in a car accident, and are immediately taken to the hospital by an ambulance. You are examined by doctors in the emergency room and it is determined that you will need immediate surgery to stop the bleeding and prevent further injury. After being escorted to the operating room, your surgeon quickly glances at a chart to see the type of procedure he will be performing. When you wake up, you realize that your right arm is missing. Instead of receiving treatment on your left arm, which was clearly damaged, your right arm, which was in perfectly good condition, has been amputated. Prior to surgery, the doctor had carelessly checked a chart and believed you were a different patient, who was later scheduled to have his right arm amputated due to infection. As a construction worker, you no longer have the ability to perform the work you once did.

October 19th, 2013, 6:10 pm

njroar

QB Coach

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3220

Re: Obamacare is here to stay.

I don't buy the $250k cap. I think any hard cap is unrealistic, but there needs to be reform for those without dehabilitating injuries suing for untold millions. If they're going to use a cap, it has to be a sliding cap depending on the severity and the negligence. You can leave the compensatory damages alone since those deal with the lost wages, etc.. while the punitive is usually where the outrageous settlements are.

Also, this is a side effect of the medicare system. 2% of all medicare hospitalizations have some issue of patient safety. It's the overflow from that problem that results in higher premiums of malpractice insurance for private doctors that have a much lower rate of incident. If the hospitals are being negligent, they should be held accountable, but it shouldn't be put on the shoulders of every doctor.

October 19th, 2013, 6:58 pm

The Legend

HC – Jim Caldwell

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pmPosts: 4699Location: WSU

Re: Obamacare is here to stay.

Blueskies wrote:

The Legend wrote:

Code:

2) It's unconstitutional and unfair. I know the popular image is some seedy trial lawyer making out like a bandit arguing some frivolous case but I -- personally -- know people who have literally had their lives destroyed by malpractice, including their ability to earn any income. Should they just get $250k and call it a day?

what you are describing is a perfectly healthy person with no medical conditions, no pain, no injury, and full function getting totally unneccessary care that resulted in some complication that debiliated them. is this true?

Obviously, if you're seeing a doctor, you have something wrong with you. But examples like this:

Quote:

You suffer severe trauma to your left arm in a car accident, and are immediately taken to the hospital by an ambulance. You are examined by doctors in the emergency room and it is determined that you will need immediate surgery to stop the bleeding and prevent further injury. After being escorted to the operating room, your surgeon quickly glances at a chart to see the type of procedure he will be performing. When you wake up, you realize that your right arm is missing. Instead of receiving treatment on your left arm, which was clearly damaged, your right arm, which was in perfectly good condition, has been amputated. Prior to surgery, the doctor had carelessly checked a chart and believed you were a different patient, who was later scheduled to have his right arm amputated due to infection. As a construction worker, you no longer have the ability to perform the work you once did.

well that is total and utter malpractice. no surgeon should be operating on someone they didnt examine themselves and the surgeon is supposed to be marking the arm before surgery so that is multiple levels of failure. i have a hard time believing that example as listed above bc seems like the surgeon would be trying to recreate the vascular perfusion to that arm and it makes little sense why someone would amputate an arm that clearly is well vascularized. proceeding to amputation of an arm would require an extreme circumstance and isnt something that would make any sense on an arm that appears uninjured. also, checking the vascularity doesnt require the patient to be awake to examine. the example, also basically implies that the injured arm had an IV placed into it which doesnt seem possible given the level of injury implied. nursing, anesthesia, etc would also have had to miss an obvious error not just the surgeon. does this patient even have either arm anymore?

regardless, if that is a true example of someone you know, its an embarrassment to medicine and obviously a capped settlement makes little sense. otherwise, its a play on emotions and very few med mal cases involve errors that insanely stupid. many many more are frivolous and damaging to both legit cases of malpractice and to the way they force providers to practice.

October 20th, 2013, 12:26 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Obamacare is here to stay.

I have a question concerning the Obamacare, and evidence is starting to come out via the Examiner and the well known former Senator now turned talking head, former Army Colonel (Alan West I think his name is)

According to the examiner article, and Mr. West, the AHA is all that it has been claimed to be and MUCH WORSE. Imbedded in the 2000 pages is a deference of power from Congress to the Legislative branch there by giving 2/3 of our checks and balance system to the Legislative/Presidential branch of our government. IF that is true, then we no longer have a President but a KING who can rule as he wishes, and is not allowed to be checked or halted on anything because he is total control.

Has anyone else heard this? Read this? Is there proof to back it up other than the former Congressional Lawyer who wrote the article or Alan West? If so, why is this not being discussed Nationally?

I will try to find the link on the article to show it in this thread.

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

October 21st, 2013, 10:28 am

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4180Location: Davison Mi

Re: Obamacare is here to stay.

WarEr4Christ wrote:

I have a question concerning the Obamacare, and evidence is starting to come out via the Examiner and the well known former Senator now turned talking head, former Army Colonel (Alan West I think his name is)

According to the examiner article, and Mr. West, the AHA is all that it has been claimed to be and MUCH WORSE. Imbedded in the 2000 pages is a deference of power from Congress to the Legislative branch there by giving 2/3 of our checks and balance system to the Legislative/Presidential branch of our government. IF that is true, then we no longer have a President but a KING who can rule as he wishes, and is not allowed to be checked or halted on anything because he is total control.

Has anyone else heard this? Read this? Is there proof to back it up other than the former Congressional Lawyer who wrote the article or Alan West? If so, why is this not being discussed Nationally?

I will try to find the link on the article to show it in this thread.

I think you are mistaken and believe that the president is under the legislative branch of the government. He's not. He's the very tippy top of the Executive branch. He and Congress DO represent 2/3rds of our checks and balances. It's supposed to be that way

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

October 21st, 2013, 10:44 am

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: Obamacare is here to stay.

WarEr4Christ wrote:

I have a question concerning the Obamacare, and evidence is starting to come out via the Examiner and the well known former Senator now turned talking head, former Army Colonel (Alan West I think his name is)

According to the examiner article, and Mr. West, the AHA is all that it has been claimed to be and MUCH WORSE. Imbedded in the 2000 pages is a deference of power from Congress to the Legislative branch there by giving 2/3 of our checks and balance system to the Legislative/Presidential branch of our government. IF that is true, then we no longer have a President but a KING who can rule as he wishes, and is not allowed to be checked or halted on anything because he is total control.

Has anyone else heard this? Read this? Is there proof to back it up other than the former Congressional Lawyer who wrote the article or Alan West? If so, why is this not being discussed Nationally?

I will try to find the link on the article to show it in this thread.

What is 'the AHA'? ObamaCare's real name is PPACA, so not sure what is being referenced here.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

October 21st, 2013, 11:24 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Obamacare is here to stay.

Sorry, I need the egg of my face icon, I did in fact mean the Executive Branch and typed it wrong.

AHA : Affordable Healthcare Act

I was trying to streamline the typing. I'm having difficulty finding the ariticle, the person who posted the link can't find it anymore, and Google pulls up all kinds of crazy crap. I'm still trying to look for it though!

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

October 21st, 2013, 2:24 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: Obamacare is here to stay.

WarEr4Christ wrote:

Sorry, I need the egg of my face icon, I did in fact mean the Executive Branch and typed it wrong.

AHA : Affordable Healthcare Act

I was trying to streamline the typing. I'm having difficulty finding the ariticle, the person who posted the link can't find it anymore, and Google pulls up all kinds of crazy crap. I'm still trying to look for it though!

IMO if they can't reference the correct law, then they're likely not a trustworthy source. I'd consider the same if it takes a while to go through the 'Google' results to find the one you're looking for.

I did find that references House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009, which is not the bill that was passed (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590))

My 2 pennies....

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

October 21st, 2013, 2:36 pm

DJ-B

Pro Bowl Player

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pmPosts: 2563

Re: Obamacare is here to stay.

What i got from what was said was that Congress decided on a certain act to side with the Executive Branch, and that somehow this is being seen as the President "controlling" 2 branches. But Congress often sides with the president if the President and majority in congress are of the same party. when that happens those presidencies get the most things pushed through. Not saying those are good things, but they face a lot less opposition if they control the White House and Congress. That's just how our system works though, and nothing new. Maybe I misunderstood the point being made.